The coccyx

[royboy]

Sorry if this has been done,



Does this tail like bone, show a relationship between man and beast?

 

[Michali]

Sorry if this has been done,



Does this tail like bone, show a relationship between man and beast?

Most species also have rib cages and back bones. Eyeballs and mouths. An evolutionist can see a common ancestory in this. A creationist can see a basic mold.

 

[warp981]

Some people say that this bone is vestigial to a monkey, although the coccyx is an important bone in the body. It has some very important muscles attached to it. (C'mon men, you know the muscles I'm talking about). If your tailbone was removed, you would have much difficulty standing up. Also, you'de be rendered impotent!!

 

[Jet Black]

Some people say that this bone is vestigial to a monkey, although the coccyx is an important bone in the body. It has some very important muscles attached to it. (C'mon men, you know the muscles I'm talking about). If your tailbone was removed, you would have much difficulty standing up. Also, you'de be rendered impotent!!

there are also completely useless muscles like the extensor coccyxis

 

[Jet Black]

Most species also have rib cages and back bones. Eyeballs and mouths. An evolutionist can see a common ancestory in this. A creationist can see a basic mold.

and an incompetent designer.there are alot of flaws that cannot be explained unless you have an incompetent designer or a blind algorithm.

 

[Data]

Some people say that this bone is vestigial to a monkey, although the coccyx is an important bone in the body. It has some very important muscles attached to it. (C'mon men, you know the muscles I'm talking about). If your tailbone was removed, you would have much difficulty standing up. Also, you'de be rendered impotent!!

Wrong. Some people are born without coccyxes, and other than that they are perfectly normal. No difficulty standing up, no impotence. The muscles that usually attach to the coccyx attach to the hip bones instead.

 

[Meatros]

Most species also have rib cages and back bones. Eyeballs and mouths. An evolutionist can see a common ancestory in this. A creationist can see a basic mold.

Most? Depends on what you are considering I suppose.

So what are squids or worms? Did they not fit the basic mold?

Maybe they were rejects...

 

[lucaspa]

Some people say that this bone is vestigial to a monkey, although the coccyx is an important bone in the body. It has some very important muscles attached to it. (C'mon men, you know the muscles I'm talking about). If your tailbone was removed, you would have much difficulty standing up. Also, you'de be rendered impotent!!

Go to www.coccyx.com and read the personal experiences. They refute your statements, particularly about standing. Your comment comes from the occasional baby born without a coccyx. Many of those have coincidental other birth defects affecting continence and impotence. That is, the same developmental defect that causes sacral anagenesis (the technical term) also separately screws up the muscles of the pelvic floor.

 

[lucaspa]

Most species also have rib cages and back bones. Eyeballs and mouths. An evolutionist can see a common ancestory in this. A creationist can see a basic mold.

When humans design paddles, wings, backhoes, and walking appendages, do we use a "basic mold" for each of these? No, we design them from scratch to best perform the task. So why didn't God?

Also, if God is using the basic mold, why did He not use it consistently? I'm thinking of the wings of pterosaurs, birds, and bats.
"Pterosaurs' featherless wings are different from the wings of bats and birds. Bird wings extend along the bird's arm and hand bones. Bat wings are supported by four fingers. But, as this fossil of a robin-size pterosaur shows, pterosaur wings stretched along the animal's long fourth finger." http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/magazines/story/0,6277,94453,00.html

So, if the basic mold is the same: humerus, radius/ulna, wrist, hand, fingers, then why are different parts of the mold used for the wing? Why isn't there one optimum design that would have been used for all these animals?

Also, since the pterosaurs and bats don't use the radius/ulna for the wing, why have those two bones there? Get rid of one for a more efficient design.

Lots of data the "basic mold" hypothesis simply doesn't explain.

Next we'll try sharks, icthyosaurs, and dolphins.

 

[Michali]

Let me begin by stating that I have never said that I am a YEC. (I just wanted to clear that up because I am always defending YECers.) I kinda agree with lucaspa on the matter. I just think there needs some defense for YEC theories, and I can just think of some while I'm reading. So I post them.

But anyway, there is a basic mold of a nuclei section and appendages. There is also a central area of sensors in most life-forms. They could have been created from a basic list. Like: "Ok this one's gonna fly across the ocean, so let's give him wings like a bird, but lets extend them very far for long flights. Let's give him the basic organs and a rib-cage for their protection. We'll give him the bird's eye, but make it able to see reflections of fish under water..." -- So on, and so forth.

 

[LorentzHA]

there are also completely useless muscles like the extensor coccyxis

I love it when you say that!

 

[Philosoft]

But anyway, there is a basic mold of a nuclei section and appendages.

Eh? What about simple animals, like some sponges, that exhibit radial symmetry?

There is also a central area of sensors in most life-forms.

Only cephalopods have this characteristic.

They could have been created from a basic list. Like: "Ok this one's gonna fly across the ocean, so let's give him wings like a bird, but lets extend them very far for long flights. Let's give him the basic organs and a rib-cage for their protection. We'll give him the bird's eye, but make it able to see reflections of fish under water..." -- So on, and so forth.

What kind of "basic list" did you have in mind?

 

[Michali]

Radial symetry is the same thing as there being a central nuclei with lesser appendages (or stuff) moving outwards. The sponge you mentioned is a rare case.

Other types had another mold.

The basic list is like: (for the topic) "give the man the vertabre, but he doesn't need a tail. Just leave the coccyx for extra butt protection, should he need it."

 

[AV1611VET]

Does this tail like bone, show a relationship between man and beast?

No -- this comes right from evolution's PR department.

It is an attempt to assign animal parts to us, in an attempt to keep the philosophy of evolution looking credible.

"Higher" academia might "see" a relationship between man and beast with this; but just because a nut can fit more than one bolt, doesn't mean everything came from the same hardware store.

 

[Belk]

No -- this comes right from evolution's PR department.

It is an attempt to assign animal parts to us, in an attempt to keep the philosophy of evolution looking credible.

"Higher" academia might "see" a relationship between man and beast with this; but just because a nut can fit more than one bolt, doesn't mean everything came from the same hardware store.

Well allow me to retort with the same amount of evidence you have provided...



Nuh-uh.

 

[Split Rock]

No -- this comes right from evolution's PR department.

It is an attempt to assign animal parts to us, in an attempt to keep the philosophy of evolution looking credible.

"Higher" academia might "see" a relationship between man and beast with this; but just because a nut can fit more than one bolt, doesn't mean everything came from the same hardware store.

Do other apes have a tailbone very similar to ours or not? If the answer is yes, then you can tell us why, since we are so far off with our PR campaign from SATAN.

 

[USincognito]

You need help. Or a new hobby.

 

[Greg1234]

Sorry if this has been done,



Does this tail like bone, show a relationship between man and beast?

No it doesn't. Neither does a backache.

For one, we are discovering functions for every proposed form of vestigial structures. Even at the molecular level. Scientific progress has been made regarding this one.

And two bacteria remain bacteria.

 

[USincognito]

No it doesn't. Neither does a backache.

For one, we are discovering functions for every proposed form of vestigial structures. Even at the molecular level. Scientific progress has been made regarding this one.

And two bacteria remain bacteria.

Leaving aside for a moment that you don't understand what vestigial means, the OP is from 7 years ago and the OPer hasn't posted in over 2 years.

 

[Mike Elphick]

How often do creationists have to be told:-

VESTIGIAL DOES NOT MEAN LACKING A FUNCTION​

The process of evolution makes use of available resources, so developing new functions out of existing material is actually a prediction of evolution. Your YECist masters use deception — the deception is to miss-define vestigial and then find a function for an organ that surgeons, in the days when they used blood-letting and leaches for treatment, thought were functionless and could be excised without harmful effects.

Like physicians today, these people were not evolutionary biologists. Read what Darwin had to say on the subject and you will note that even 150 years ago the definition of vestigial never meant without function.

An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose; and remain perfectly efficient for the other. ... Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object.

Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species: Chapter XIII-MUTUAL AFFINITIES OF ORGANIC BEINGS:MORPHOLOGY:EMBRYOLOGY:RUDIMENTARY ORGANS - Free Online Library